Hello all,
Victoria's proposed distinction between 'hard' SMR data and interpretative
layers is an interesting one from the DSU Standards point of view.
Traditional applications of standards such as MIDAS have focussed on the
'hard' factual side of data recording and retrieval standards. Increasingly
however (as Victorias posting mentions) other sources and approaches are
coming to the fore in terms of data collection - e.g. landscape
characterisation. This is an area of work that is stressed in the recent
Power of Place report from EH.
My interest as someone from the standards side of the fence is in assessing
what information needs to be recorded to allow for e.g. 'area'
characterisation over and above the traditional characterisation of
'monuments' (however loosely or broadly defined)?
Any thoughts? Is this an area that FISH should be looking at? Are any de
facto standards for this sort of information already emerging?
Edmund Lee
Data Services Unit Standards team
English Heritage
|